CCP 10-10-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

PC #06-030 Variance Page I of2 James Lehnhoff .From: Lis, Brad [blis@carlson.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 03,20065:01 PM To: James Lehnhoff Subject: PC #06-030 Variance Dear Mr, Lehnhoff: I would like to point out a couple of details that are not factual with regard to the packet dated 9/18/06, 1, Applicant did not construct the second access point after the Building Official's last inspection, The entire drive as it currently exists was all done at one time and was completed prior to the last inspection, The last inspection was completed in October 2003, The driveway was installed as it exists today on 9/4 and 9/5 of 2003, Comments on the correction notice dated 9/11/03 stated "exterior sod/seed by 10/31/03", not "landscape and final grading" as indicated on the Attachment 3A-2 Memo from the Building Official included in the above referenced packet. This drive access was never addressed as a non-compliance condition even though it was in place at final construction, 2. We did not request a second curb cut as we had no idea that we were not in compliance with the ordinances, The City just recently informed us of this issue when they discovered the discrepancy between existing conditions and current code, The current conditions were in place during the entire time that the City engineers planned the reconstruction program for the Ridgewood Neighborhood, With regard to the findings of fact related to the variances, I would offer the following viewpoints regarding finding of facts: Two access driveway variance findings: . The unique circumstance in this instance is the location of trees that should be preserved to enhance the character of the neighborhood, Due to the location of the trees, we can only create an access point 15 feet in width at the opening and the actual drive is approximately 12 feet. This is not a functional driveway as it does not allow space to park a car and still get another one around it to exit. 2, The underlying purpose of the ordinance should be to enhance safety and to save costs to the city, The circular drive enhances safety by allowing adequate space to tum a car around and drive front first out of the property, It also allows enough room on site so that one extra car can be parked and avoid parking in the street. From a cost standpoint, two 15 foot openings will cost the city no more than one 30 foot opening - most openings within the neighborhood are at least 2 car widths wide, 3. A fifteen foot opening is not adequate, Other lots referenced have ability to have driveway openings as wide as 40 feet. The length of the driveway within the lot does not leave adequate space to park one car in the driveway and to exit the garage without risk of collision, 4. The unique location of the mature trees create the above mentioned hardship. 5, The two access driveway is not a unique feature and will not alter the character of the neighborhood, There is an example directly across the street - a drive with 2 access points and one of the access points is far wider than we are able to obtain if we are restricted to one point of access and preserve the trees, The essential character of this neighborhood is that no two homes or lots are developed the same way, Crushed rock surface - we consider the crushed rock surface to be an "improved surface" as it has a base and does not move and create muddy or unstable conditions during spring thaws, We agree with staff that the request for the crushed rock surface should be addressed through an ordinance amendment that will define the crushed rock surface as an Mroved surface, The underlying purpose of this ordinance is to keep the streets clean during rainy and muddy seasons _nis surface accomplishes that goal. Staff has not received any calls or letters from property owners, but applicant has discussed with adjacent property owners and they are in support of the request. The spirit of the ordinances should be to serve the will of the constituents 10/4/2006